Moors: On the history channel tonight.

[Spino]

Thanks for the Youtube link!

Interestingly, this book http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Moor-Jo...9221289&sr=8-3 and the comments posted about it suggest that I'm not alone in this confusion and it appears the enthnic/genetic history of the Moors is a bit of controversial issue.

You're linking to a book written by a man who also put forth the argument that Sub-Saharan Africans explored and colonized the New World before the Vikings or the Spanish?!?

I hate to cite Wiki but its entry on the Berbers is damn impressive, and goes so far as to include recent results from genetic testing which helps a great deal in determining who the Imazigh were and where their real origins lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berbers

Edit - Sorry, didn't mean to come across as belligerent or accusatory in my initial response but it is the 'scholarship' of individuals like Van Sertima that can taint serious academic research on this subject or worse, lend credence to revisionistic thinking and skew the public perception of reality.

[Didz]

You're linking to a book written by a man who also put forth the argument that Sub-Saharan Africans explored and colonized the New World before the Vikings or the Spanish?!?

Whilst, I was not aware of the background of this author it still serves to make my point, which was, not a recommendation to buy his book, but an example if read in conjunction with the comments it provoked of the confusion that exists over their enthnic and genetic origins.

If I was pushed to voice my own conclusions from what little I have read. I would say that logically the only sensible conclusion is that 'The Moors' never existed. I think what we today refer to as 'The Moors' were in truth never a single ethnic group.

History suggests that the first 'Moorish' invasion of Spain included warriors from several ethnic backgrounds led by Sultans/Caliphs who led confederations of tribes rather than a single nation.

It seems that those who remained to settle in Al Andalucia evolved into a completed new ethnic and cultural group over the next 400 years. Which became so distinct from its original roots that whenever it appealed for assistance from Al Maghreb the men that were sent were so alien in appearance and attitudes that they simply couldn't wait to get rid of them again.

Even when in the 12th Century the Almovids ousted the Andalucian Caliphs and took control of Spain personally, (closely followed by the Almohads) it seems that Spain itself managed to seduced and remould them so that by the time of the fall of Grenada the Nasrid king and his people really had little in common at all with the tribes of North Africa, and upon their explusion established completely new and seperate communities.

It aapears to me that even south of the Straits of Gibralter the tribes that occuped Al Maghreb were not of the same ethnic stock or of identical cultures. The quoram might prohibit the killing of other muslims but it doesn't demand interbreeding or close inter-ethnic relationships and it seems that what the Andalucia's called Al Maghreb was home to a wide range of different tribal groups some of which are represented in the game and others that are not. We can even see this same pattern in some moderm muslim states.

How history can take all these disperate tribes and ethnic groups with their variations in culture and and lump them into a single all encompassing class called 'The Moors' is probably nothing more than a vestage of western arrogance and ignorance.

The equivalent would be a muslim historian deciding that the French, English, German and Italians were all 'The Europeans' or perhaps like the Romans just referring to the whole lot as 'The Barbarians'. (Actually they do, but that just confirms my point)

Anyway thats my view, though of course its more convient to keep them as 'The Moors' for the purposes of the game.

[Tran]

I also want to shared my thought on this, might not be 100% right but they are probably well-known.

You also cannot forget that in mid 8th century, somewhere around 750, a great civil war between Islamic faction occured in Middle East. The result of this was not just the overthrown or fell of the Ummayad Caliphate but also shaken the whole Islamic empire which is at its peak, from Spain, Morroco, into the most corner of Arabian Peninsula. It's true that the new Abbasid had quickly took control of the former Ummayad's dominion, but by this time, most of its former territory has lost control from the central government, and some gone as far as independence/seceding. You can note that from these, at least until modern time, not a single state ever managed to subdue or control the whole Arabian Peninsula, something only Ummayad ever did.

Now back to the Moors, from the point of the Ummayad disintegration in 750s. Without any support or "true central government", the Moors must now of course rely on its own for many things, including military and defense. This was something the Moors in general probably did not need to think of previously, given the fact that any forces or troops from the rest of former Ummayad empire could came there at any time (because it was one of the territory). But then, not only the Moors lost support, the Ummayad refugee which managed to escape the killings in Middle East also found safe haven at Islamic Spain (Moors), and slowly they took control of the Islamic Spain territory. And you have to remember, Ummayad are the arc-enemy of Abbasid Caliphate, which by that time has control over some of Ummayad's former territory. No way, it could rely on "its Arabian brothers" for support or help.

The evident of this thousand years old quarrel even still exist today, you can just take a look at map of Middle East today and read their state law and philosophy/doctrine system, or you can also just turn on your TV and switch into news channel...

[Watchman]

This was something the Moors in general probably did not need to think of previously, given the fact that any forces or troops from the rest of former Ummayad empire could came there at any time (because it was one of the territory).

Getting past the Libyan desert and the empty gulf before it is AFAIK somewhat easier said than done, mind you, especially if the locals are being uncooperative. The distance from one end of the Med to the other can be surprisingly long in many ways, and its eastern and western halves tended to have considerable trouble getting to the other effectively.

AFAIK the Islamic expansion westwards along the North African coast and then into the Iberian peninsula was achieved mainly with troops recruited from the locals, with an increasingly small Arab core giving the marching orders.

[Tran]

Getting past the Libyan desert and the empty gulf before it is AFAIK somewhat easier said than done, mind you, especially if the locals are being uncooperative. The distance from one end of the Med to the other can be surprisingly long in many ways, and its eastern and western halves tended to have considerable trouble getting to the other effectively.

It appears you somehow miss my point. My point, as I stated before, was that the Moors since fall of Ummayad was no longer subject to control or has any kind of support from "central government" like before. It has to rely on its own since no one else care about them then...

[Watchman]

No. My counter-point is that Tunisia already, nevermind Iberia, was so far away from the center of the Caliphate they were in practice on their own to begin with. With those kinds of distances the local "satraps" tend to be de facto kings in all but name only, and certainly cannot count on much real support from their distant nominal superiors for problem-solving.

[Tran]

No. My counter-point is that Tunisia already, nevermind Iberia, was so far away from the center of the Caliphate they were in practice on their own to begin with. With those kinds of distances the local "satraps" tend to be de facto kings in all but name only, and certainly cannot count on much real support from their distant nominal superiors for problem-solving.

If that's what you wanted to say, then I accept.

[Didz]

I also want to shared my thought on this, might not be 100% right but they are probably well-known.

@Tran
You mentioned a couple of things which I haven't come across in my initial reading. Namely, the Ummayad dominion and the Abassid Caliphate.

I've been concentrating my reading on the history of Al Adalucia and working south and east into Al Maghreb. As I've been doing so I've become more and more convinced that this region was not a single unified nation but a conglomerate of individual (if allied) tribal groups and small Kingdoms.

But at the same time I also became convinced that they had to have some sort of overarching control to manage their affairs and co-ordinate their governance. I just hadn't managed to work out who or what exercised that control and where from.

It seems from your initial post that you have done the reverse and so you have a good understanding of the situation further in the East and how it might have affected Al Magreb and Al Andalucia.

So, I suspect that the Ummayad dominion and the Abassid Caliphate are the over-arching controllers of Al Magreb and possibly Al Andulcia missing from my reading so far and I'd be interested to hear more from you about who they were and how they exercised their control over the kings, Princes and Chieftains of their Eastern provinces.

For instance: Were they the Moors and how did their rule interface with that of the Nasrid princes?

Picking up on Watchman's point, there are certainly examples from the earlier history of the Persian Empire of 'Satraps' in outlying provinces becoming almost independant rulers. Indeed it seems to have been a feature of this style of governance. What I'm not so clear about is whether these 'Satraps' were ethincally and genetically related to the ruling dynasty or whether they were local nobility merely pledged to the vassalage of their superiors at the centre of power.

[Tran]

I don't really think the Ummayad Caliphate was like the Holy Roman Empire in which they were more like confederation of tribal groups and small Kingdoms or states. The Ummayad did have more influence and exercise more control over its subjects and territories, whether it was gained by peaceful submission (such as in Egypt), military conquest (like in this case Spain), or through other means. I'd rather call them more as territories with "limited autonomy" who are faithful of their Ummayad government. However like you said, it might have similiar characteristic with earlier Persian Empire, although I can't be sure since I don't know much about Persian history.

Control, as far as I know, was mainly through the spread of Islam, installation of trusted Ummayad people in high offices, and also through marriages with local rulers or people which they had subdued. About this last point, basically the Ummayad tried to gain trust and loyalty from the numerous people it encountered. Be it Berbers, Persian, or Egyptian. I read one article in the past, that even in Spain, supposedly one of the Arab military generals married a local Spanish ruler (or the other way around) who later converted, through this they managed to calm and gain trust from the many non-Muslim Spanish subjects.

[Didz]

Extracted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Africa

Woopee! I found quite a nice potted history of North Africa under the Moors on wiki whilst I was trying to find an answer to the question on the history quiz. Just proving the old adage that you always find what you’re looking for when you’re not looking for it.

Anyways, the story goes like this:

In the 7th century, (so before the first invasion of Spain) a host of Arabs, believers in the new faith of Islam, emerged from Egypt and conquered the whole of North Africa from the Red Sea to the Atlantic before continuing into Spain.

Christianity virtually disappeared throughout North Africa, although in Egypt, orthodox Christianity was to remain the main faith for another 500 years, despite being required to pay a special tax called the jizya in order to be defended by Muslim armies. (This tax was not abolished until 1855. )

It is claimed that the safety of the Orthodox Christians in Egypt was guaranteed by the Christian Kingdom of Aksum (modern day Ethiopia), who already had a history of offering sanctuary to early Muslim converts from persecution by pagan Arab tribes and now threatened the new Muslim rulers of Egypt that they would dam the Nile and prevent water reaching their lands if they began to persecute the Christians in their newly acquired territories.

Lake Tana, the source of the Blue Nile was in their dominion so the theory is that they were planning to dam its output. How true this story is depends on how much faith one puts on the ability of the Aksum King to make good his threat.

It seems more likely that the Muslim rulers of Egypt were on good terms with the Aksum dynasty and that what actually took place was a friendly diplomatic exchange, in which the potential vulnerability of the Nile might have been nothing more than a bargaining chip on the table.

Whatever, the truth of the diplomatic exchanges the fact remains that the Christian Coptic Church survived in Egypt for 500 years after its annexation by the Arabs.

It seems that nothing much happened in the Geo-political sense over the next 300 years. In Spain the new Muslim princes were gradually being corrupted by science, logic and art, as already mentioned, and the Christian Princes were beginning to set up their protection rackets to exploit the weakness of their Muslim neighbours

Then, in the 11th century there was a sizable Arab immigration, into North Africa (not sure why yet), but it resulted in a large absorption of Berber culture.

Now, I’m not quite sure what the author means by ‘absorption’.

Does he mean that the large influx of Arabs subsumed the Berber culture and effectively reduced its dominance of the region, or does he mean the opposite. e.g. That the Arabs moving into the area absorbed the Berber culture and became more Berber-like.

My guess is probably the former, which would explain for instance why in the 8th century the Berbers who assisted in the invasion of Spain were replaced culturally and ethnically by a quite different but still supposedly Berber warrior class during the Reconquista period.

In effect the nature of the Berber culture and even its genetic stock evolved in the 300-700 years intervening between the orignal invasion of the Iberian Peninsula and the Reconquisa.

The Berbers adopted the speech and religion of their conquerors and from this base it spread south across the Sahara.

The new Arabic immigrants also became firmly established along the eastern seaboard of Africa, settling and developing new flourishing colonies, such as Mombasa, Malindi and Sofala, and establishing themselves as a major, maritime and commercial, power in the Indian Ocean.

At first these Arab immigrants to Africa recognized the authority of the Aghlabite Caliph of Baghdad. The Aghlabite dynasty, had been founded by Ibrahim I ibn al-Aghlab, who was one of Haroun al-Raschid, the fifth Abbasid Caliph’s, generals and now ruled this area as a vassal of the caliphate.

However, early in the 10th century the Fatimid dynasty based in Cairo established itself as the dominant faction in Egypt, and wrested control of both Egypt and Al Magreb from Abbasid control.

It's not mentioned but I suspect this ties in with Trans comments about civil war etcetera in North Africa and eventually led to the rise to power of other dynasties such as Almoravides and Almohades.

Eventually the Turks, are desitned to conquer Constantinople in 1453, and seize Egypt in 1517, establishing the regencies of Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli (between 1519 and 1551). However, these events takes us beyond the fall of Grenada and so it appears that at the time of the reconquista Al Magreb was indeed in a state of turmoil as suggested by Tran.

The Fatamid dynasty had just wrested control of Egypt and was presumably still trying to subjugate the lands in Africa ruled by the Aghlabite Dynasty.

The Aghlabites were already under attack from the Turks who had invaded their possessions in Italy and under this combined pressure they eventually lost their grasp on power sometime around 909 AD.

The Fatamid dynasty in turn then found itself unable to keep control of its new possessions and lost at least Al Magreb it to the Almoravides and Almohades dynasties. These new dynasties seem to have arisen from the Arabized Berber culture that had evolved from the earlier Arab immigrations.

And so it was these relatively new dynastic powers which were then invited to assist the Andalucian’s to defend their possession in Spain.

I’m sure its not actually that simple but it confirms my suspicion that significant changes were taking place both culturally, ethnically and politically across North Africa over the period of relatively peaceful Muslim rule in Spain.

The mystery still exists however, as to the source of the Black Moorish warriors reported by Christians on the battlefields of Spain.

The absorption by Arabs of the Berber culture doesn’t really help much, and I suspect these troops must have come from other parts of the empire. Perhaps, these men were from other vassal states ruled by the new Almoravid and Almohad empire?

If so which, where and why were they sent rather than local warriors?

And how does this information tie in with Trans information on the Ummayad Caliphate?
Ah! think I may have found the answer to the last question. It seems the Ummayad Caliphate was overthrown by the Abbasid Caliphate sometime around 750 AD. So, Trans information is a preface to the stuff I've just summarised. That would also partly explain why I hadn't come across them before in my reading, though to be honest I hadn't heard about the Abbasid's either.

This get more like peeling the skin from an union every day.

BTW: On a lighter note I think I've hired a mercenary to help me invade Spain. I mentioned it too her last night and she said 'Yeah! sure just book the tickets and I'll come.' She's not into history but she does like architecture so it should work out all right as we are unlikey to find much accurate history in Spain anyway. Any advice on agents/tours etc. welcome.

[KARTLOS]

++++
Hmm! this begining to turn into a bit of blog. I'm still trying to make sense of the eyewitness accounts of Christian witnesses who claim that the warriors they fought were 'black as pitch' and other references which claim that Berbers (which theoretically included the Almohad and Almoravid's) were lighter skinned frequently with red hair. Either these were two different ethnic groups from the same area or someones not telling the truth.

Interestingly, this book http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Moor-Jo...9221289&sr=8-3 and the comments posted about it suggest that I'm not alone in this confusion and it appears the enthnic/genetic history of the Moors is a bit of controversial issue.

berber defines people who speak the same language group rather than ethnicity. morroc today is an extremely ethnically diverse country and it would be hard to identify someone as "berber" purely on appearence.

the almoravids were a southern berber group and people from that area of morroco do tend be more likely to more negroid (blacker) features. the people from that region would have been in contact with south west africans for a long time because of the saharan trade routes - some of which would have included black slaves.

the almohads were from the atlas mountains, and quite likely they may have originally been paler.

[KARTLOS]

.

How history can take all these disperate tribes and ethnic groups with their variations in culture and and lump them into a single all encompassing class called 'The Moors' is probably nothing more than a vestage of western arrogance and ignorance.

The equivalent would be a muslim historian deciding that the French, English, German and Italians were all 'The Europeans' or perhaps like the Romans just referring to the whole lot as 'The Barbarians'. (Actually they do, but that just confirms my point)

Anyway thats my view, though of course its more convient to keep them as 'The Moors' for the purposes of the game.

a good way to think of it is to compare it with the term roman - by the time of the empire that doesnt signify a particular ethnic type, but rather people who lived within the empire

[KARTLOS]

Extracted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Africa


The mystery still exists however, as to the source of the Black Moorish warriors reported by Christians on the battlefields of Spain.

.

one possibilty is that they were slaves? the black slave trade was widespread through the muslim world at the time.

a morrocan example from a bit later is that moulay ismael (ruling in the 1600's) used and army of 150 000 black slaves!

[KARTLOS]

here is a link to moulay ismaels "black guard", quite interesting,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Guard

[Didz]

here is a link to moulay ismaels "black guard", quite interesting,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Guard

Yes, that is interesting. It obviously relates to a period much later than the ReConquista but given that the Caliphates that ruled Al Magreb had access if not ownership of most of Africa from the Atlantic to Indian coast they would also have had access to warriors of similar ethnic roots.

It makes sense too, for the same reason given in the Wiki article you linked, that in a time of trouble and turmoil amongst the Arabs princes foriegn mercenaries and slaves might provide a safer source for loyal troops.

There was also a sound precedent for this from earlier history where the Eyptian Pharoah's hired Numidian warriors to bolster his armies, so perhaps thats the answer. Either that or becuase there was a risk of civil war or betrayal at home you would not want to send your own loyal troops abroad, so hire some mercenaries and send them instead.